SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 5, 2020
2,161
406
213
59
Broken Arrow
A reasonable middle ground like "life begins at conception" and "total ban except if the mother's life is in danger"? Bc that's the "middle ground" we're seeing in many red states. "Thoughtful discussion" doesn't seem to be of any interest to them.
It is to me, although I stand by my previous comment about discussing this topic among those with opposing views.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,134
21,180
1,743
@CowboyJD…did they just kill the right to privacy?

Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. See 410 U. S., at 152–153.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
They’re building the blocks towards killing all unenumerated constitutional rights derived from substantive due process/equal protection analysis…including the unenumerated right to privacy.

Here’s a little list of unenumerated constitutional rights that have been derived from substantive due process/equal protection other than abortions (Roe).

-Same sex marriage….Obergefell
-Certain sexual acts between consenting adults (same sex or opposite sex)…Lawrence
-Contraception…Griswold
-Different race marriage….Loving

Despite the existence of the 9th Amendment.

I’m not saying they’re coming for all of those, but Thomas’s concurring opinion claims SCOTUS has a DUTY to reconsider and overturn three of those. Three sitting Justices (Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) already argued in the Obergefell dissent that there is no constitutional right whatsoever to same sex marriage.

Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs connects the history and legal analysis of contraception rights directly with abortion as historically part of the eugenics movement and a social evil. No reason to make that connection unless you’re building the argument for overturning Griswold in the future.

IMO, they’re coming after at a minimum two…probably three of those.The only question is will they get enough other socially conservative, jurisprudentially activist Justices to go along.
 
Last edited:

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,230
3,108
743
36
tractor
One of the more embarrassing threads in my time at orange power.

A discussion on the morality and legality of abortion almost never goes civil. That’s expected. But this one is for the birds.

So much hatred. For each other. So divided. Not sure embarrassing is the word. Disappointing? Sad? Disconcerting?

Mostly college educated professionals in here and yet, I feel like a dumb ass having read through it all. That’s on me, should’ve known better but it’s hard not to read into this after so many years getting know the online personalities.

I’m frightened for a lot of you and myself and my family. Yup. That’s the word. This thread is extremely frightening. If this is what it’s like in this small community. We are screwed as a nation.
Mixing law, biology and religion is a recipe for harsh discussion. Our tendency to become shriller and shriller is frightening.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,230
3,108
743
36
tractor
They’re building the blocks towards killing all unenumerated constitutional rights derived from substantive due process/equal protection analysis…including the unenumerated right to privacy..

Despite the existence of the 9th Amendment.
That is probably about as correct an opinion as I have seen on this. This court majority is conservative and is very literal.
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
21,130
11,574
1,743
42
Fairmont, MN
We're having a discussion and you're arguing against my points, so I'm not just "randomly" asking you to define it. If the pro-choice position is so fragile that it doesn't withstand a mere definition of when life begins its pretty weak.

To be honest, I can entertain a discussion with those that don't see an issue with abortion early in a pregnancy because it isn't life yet. It's a thought provoking idea. However, once it's a viable human I have real trouble drawing a line between a 40 week old in the womb and 1 day later nursing in the mother's arms. Polling shows that most people feel the same way. There's a reasonable middle ground that can be established at the state level but it requires thoughtful discussion.

I don't know that there is a reasonable middle ground.

It's not like gun control. You have idiots on either side saying ban handguns or any minor infringement on gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment but I've seen reasonable people here on both sides say things like make it 21 to buy certain kinds of rifles or look further at redflag laws and for that issue it makes sense. When you have one side saying full stop abortion should be illegal and the other side saying no a woman has a right over body autonomy, I don't see where there is room to compromise. Maybe areas like rape (you can say incest but I'm betting 90% of the time it's rape as well) or with late term abortions if the child is going to have lifelong issues at best and a short painful life at worst but generally speaking those are rare compared to what we've seen the last 50 years.

I can understand how not everyone shares my views on morality, but personally I think the practice is barbaric. If we go this route so be it but I wish states that ban it would do more to help the women it impacts. Let's be honest, girls with money will still have access but girls without won't. States that ban it should do more to help them. Provide expanded healthcare access, expand wic, and subsidize daycare so their parent or parents have a shot to improve their lives.

Thinking about it maybe that's the middle ground you are looking for. I know the left wants reproductive freedom for women but they also want a social structure that allows people to work their way out of poverty. The right doesn't like abortion and doesn't like people staying at home getting a monthly check. Providing social programs that allow people in poverty or middle class college students who have an unexpected pregnancy a way to continue to be successful instead of having a baby be a major interruption into their lives is something most can agree on.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
23,146
15,534
1,743
Yep, many feel that way. I don’t. It is used as a weapon in the debate even though we all think about life in many different ways and give certain life far more importance than others. If we really felt “life” was the fundamental question there would never be a kid starving to death on a patch of dusty ground in Africa while we gluttonously overeat and people walk by him taking photos. Nobody disagrees that the African kid is a life. But, him being "life" isn’t the fundamental question, although one side of this debate pretends it is while still not protecting him. If at some point human civilization actually made protecting all life under any circumstances the rule then I would rethink my position. But, as we are and have always been, we have completely different levels of concern for varying levels of "life." And, that includes the creator who extinguishes life at this early stage in massive quantities that are orders of magnitude higher than any other human life stage. Often before any other being even knows it existed it is extinguished. There is nothing else like that in our existence. I've seen too many teens die and seen the deep anguish in the face of the mother. I've seen far, far more embryos and early-stage fetuses die and have seen many sad mothers from that too. I can tell you it simply is not the same. It is not the same for me when I have to tell them. Their reaction is not the same. Life doesn't alway equal life in reality only in fantasy. Trying to equate an embryo to a teenager by exalting the word "life" is simply disingenuous to how we all really live.
We're probably not really in much of a disagreement on this issue. I'm pro choice, but I can't get away from the consideration that a sperm that just bumped into an egg feels a lot less like infanticide than a fetus in the last week of pregnancy.

I claim no moral high ground on this issue. I know a mom desperate enough to abort a pregnancy is often not prepared to give that baby a fair chance in life and statically that person is more likely than the general population to end up on the government teet in some form or another.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,982
2,128
1,743
Oklahoma City
Yep, many feel that way. I don’t. It is used as a weapon in the debate even though we all think about life in many different ways and give certain life far more importance than others. If we really felt “life” was the fundamental question there would never be a kid starving to death on a patch of dusty ground in Africa while we gluttonously overeat and people walk by him taking photos. Nobody disagrees that the African kid is a life. But, him being "life" isn’t the fundamental question, although one side of this debate pretends it is while still not protecting him. If at some point human civilization actually made protecting all life under any circumstances the rule then I would rethink my position. But, as we are and have always been, we have completely different levels of concern for varying levels of "life." And, that includes the creator who extinguishes life at this early stage in massive quantities that are orders of magnitude higher than any other human life stage. Often before any other being even knows it existed it is extinguished. There is nothing else like that in our existence. I've seen too many teens die and seen the deep anguish in the face of the mother. I've seen far, far more embryos and early-stage fetuses die and have seen many sad mothers from that too. I can tell you it simply is not the same. It is not the same for me when I have to tell them. Their reaction is not the same. Life doesn't alway equal life in reality only in fantasy. Trying to equate an embryo to a teenager by exalting the word "life" is simply disingenuous to how we all really live.
You bring up some important points. As physicians we spend our life fighting death from the time of birth to the time of death. But are some lives more more important and more worthy to save than other lives? Should we as physicians or as nations choose who lives and who dies ? This has been tried in Nazi Germany's death camps, In Communist Russia's Gulogs, and selective female abortions in China and India all with well known results. Once the killing of the unwanted starts its hard to stop and becomes the 'right' and acceptable thing to do.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,582
1,924
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
They’re building the blocks towards killing all unenumerated constitutional rights derived from substantive due process/equal protection analysis…including the unenumerated right to privacy.

Here’s a little list of unenumerated constitutional rights that have been derived from substantive due process/equal protection other than abortions (Roe).

-Same sex marriage….Obergefell
-Certain sexual acts between consenting adults (same sex or opposite sex)…Lawrence
-Contraception…Griswold
-Different race marriage….Loving

Despite the existence of the 9th Amendment.

I’m not saying they’re coming for all of those, but Thomas’s concurring opinion claims SCOTUS has a DUTY to reconsider and overturn three of those. Three sitting Justices (Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) already argued in the Obergefell dissent that there is no constitutional right whatsoever to same sex marriage.

Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs connects the history and legal analysis of contraception rights directly with abortion as historically part of the eugenics movement and a social evil. No reason to make that connection unless you’re building the argument for overturning Griswold in the future.

IMO, they’re coming after at a minimum two…probably three of those.The only question is will they get enough other socially conservative, jurisprudentially activist Justices to go along.
Interesting that Thomas never brought up Loving v. Virginia. Maybe he is confident that a constitutional amendment, such as the 14th one, clears his marriage to a white woman.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,134
21,180
1,743
For someone who doesn't fullly believe in things like souls, this hits hard.
It may have sounded “deeper” than it was meant in at least one sense.

When corporations are “persons” with constitutional rights as has been held….biologically “living” is irrelevant to the legal rights questions of the Constitution. Consequently, the question of when does life begin is also largely irrelevant.

”Personhood” is the relevant legal concept in these analysis, and that’s an entirely different concept than “life”.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,232
33,350
1,743
oklahoma city
You bring up some important points. As physicians we spend our life fighting death from the time of birth to the time of death. But are some lives more more important and more worthy to save than other lives? Should we as physicians or as nations choose who lives and who dies ? This has been tried in Nazi Germany's death camps, In Communist Russia's Gulogs, and selective female abortions in China and India all with well known results. Once the killing of the unwanted starts its hard to stop and becomes the 'right' and acceptable thing to do.
No, as physicians we try to help people with matters of health at all stages of life. We do not start at birth. All of the major physician groups have released statements condemning this decision that puts big government in health care decisions.

No, we humans do not value all lives as equally important which you should understand from my post so it is odd to ask the question that I already answered.

If you are going to inappropriately try to tie women trying to make this difficult individual choice in with horrible atrocities in history at least add in the more pertinent ones to this nation. Slavery and the reduction of the Native American population from 10 million to 237,000 occurred here. Not that any of those have anything to do with this because all of those were governments, majority men, making conditions that took bodily autonomy away from people. Now, if we ever had the government start forced abortion, I would be with you.

We have had legal abortion for a half of a century and it has been a very successful time in our history. See, the rest of us have an internal moral compass that does let us know what to do. It is interesting that you feel you wouid not be able to stop killing because of the individual right abortion. Sounds like you need help.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
Sorry for breaking my word, but I really like this quote...but for a different reason than was intended.

This first sentence is exactly how every man should think before having sex with someone he is not yet married to.

The "choice" he has is NOT to have sex unless he's married and willing to raise children IF they get pregnant. I wish everyone had a father like mine who scared the living hell out of me about unwed sex to the point that when I was in the backseat of a parked car with a young lady I would not go that far precisely because if I did, it was fully and completely expected that I would now be a lifelong father to that child that I just created and husband to that mother if I was so foolish as to impregnate her.

I know it's a different time, but that type of "choice" would indeed be helpful for us males. It is also true that us men should think very hard before we make those types of choices.

Additionally, I do know I changed the context of this quote's intention. But, once again, the first sentence is exactly how us men should and don't often think.

Men should be held 100% responsible for the children they bring into the world just as much as women are, this is fundamental to a better society than what we have now.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
why does that matter so much to you what they respond? I'll throw my 2 cents, at conception and through many weeks they are a 'potentially a life'.. what bothers me is people who are pro-life only "care" about unborn lives, they don't care about that life after birth, they don't care about immigrant lives, they don't care about starving, abused, molested lives, they only "care" about the unborn!
That's not 100% true, although I can see how you feel that way, because actions speak louder than words. It's actually right for you to be upset about hypocrisy. I think all those lives matter just as much and that we have also failed as a nation to protect them.
 
Sep 22, 2011
4,369
3,011
1,743
34
Sorry for breaking my word, but I really like this quote...but for a different reason than was intended.

This first sentence is exactly how every man should think before having sex with someone he is not yet married to.

The "choice" he has is NOT to have sex unless he's married and willing to raise children IF they get pregnant. I wish everyone had a father like mine who scared the living hell out of me about unwed sex to the point that when I was in the backseat of a parked car with a young lady I would not go that far precisely because if I did, it was fully and completely expected that I would now be a lifelong father to that child that I just created and husband to that mother if I was so foolish as to impregnate her.

I know it's a different time, but that type of "choice" would indeed be helpful for us males. It is also true that us men should think very hard before we make those types of choices.

Additionally, I do know I changed the context of this quote's intention. But, once again, the first sentence is exactly how us men should and don't often think.

Men should be held 100% responsible for the children they bring into the world just as much as women are, this is fundamental to a better society than what we have now.
Once again, are we going to act like child support, family court, WIC, SNAP and every charity on the planet aren’t out here supporting single mothers?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,134
21,180
1,743
I appreciate your life story. It’s sad, especially the abuse, and interesting at the same time. I would only challenge you that while looking back you might consider the implications to you and your family had your grandmother been raised in a time after Row and made an easier choice backed up by law to abort your mother. Would you or your family even exist? Granted I do understand your argument as well. Just something to consider.

im going to leave this thread now, it’s not going to change anyones mind on this subject. I would just close with…be kind to one another no matter our beliefs on this or any other topic. We can vehemently disagree, discuss our beliefs, and still should be kind. I was overly exuberant and lost my filter yesterday due to the historic nature of the day. I’m sorry to any whom I offended in my overtly open discussion. We just have different opinions and that’s ok.. have a blessed day!
Calling people that have gotten and who believe there are certain rights to abortion for women baby killers isn’t being kind.

“Overly exuberant and lost your filter”?

More like showed your true nature and character that you try to hide behind a filter..

You’re a fraud.

An absolute fraud.

The absolute gall exhibited by this post is pretty appalling.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
16,660
5,995
1,743
Katy, TX
They’re building the blocks towards killing all unenumerated constitutional rights derived from substantive due process/equal protection analysis…including the unenumerated right to privacy.

Here’s a little list of unenumerated constitutional rights that have been derived from substantive due process/equal protection other than abortions (Roe).

-Same sex marriage….Obergefell
-Certain sexual acts between consenting adults (same sex or opposite sex)…Lawrence
-Contraception…Griswold
-Different race marriage….Loving

Despite the existence of the 9th Amendment.

I’m not saying they’re coming for all of those, but Thomas’s concurring opinion claims SCOTUS has a DUTY to reconsider and overturn three of those. Three sitting Justices (Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) already argued in the Obergefell dissent that there is no constitutional right whatsoever to same sex marriage.

Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs connects the history and legal analysis of contraception rights directly with abortion as historically part of the eugenics movement and a social evil. No reason to make that connection unless you’re building the argument for overturning Griswold in the future.

IMO, they’re coming after at a minimum two…probably three of those.The only question is will they get enough other socially conservative, jurisprudentially activist Justices to go along.
Not to hijack the the thread but what are your thought on the Miranda ruling?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,134
21,180
1,743
Not to hijack the the thread but what are your thought on the Miranda ruling?
It’s not surprising.

Miranda isn’t a constitutional rule/civil right in and of itself.

It’s a court fashioned rule designed to protect a constitutional right.

The remedy for violations of Miranda has always been suppression of statement/evidence. It’s still that.
 
May 4, 2011
3,736
1,671
1,743
Charleston, SC
It may have sounded “deeper” than it was meant in at least one sense.

When corporations are “persons” with constitutional rights as has been held….biologically “living” is irrelevant to the legal rights questions of the Constitution. Consequently, the question of when does life begin is also largely irrelevant.

”Personhood” is the relevant legal concept in these analysis, and that’s an entirely different concept than “life”.
I would say that is a deep concept that people infer notions about things like souls.

That said, I've always wondered why independence doesn't play a role. There's no other circumstance where the state can force you to care for a dependent. Because the dependent can't survive outside the mother and abortion is the only option for removing the dependent, it seems like the state shouldn't be able be able to ban at least first trimester abortions under equal protection. Perhaps I'm wrong and misunderstand that.